|
My Imaginary GF posted:Al-Saqr, did contemporary europeans view zionists as europeans, or jews? Did zionists view themselves as europeans, or jews? If it waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, and tastes like a duck, you might just be eating duck. Did the Europeans identify as European?! E:please do not willfully mislabel transcontinentalists Miltank fucked around with this message at 16:12 on Mar 7, 2015 |
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 14:02 |
|
|
FreshlyShaven posted:Hertzl did use language like that, though not as explicitly. He said that the Zionists should focus on economically coercing all but the wealthiest Palestinians into leaving Palestine by denying them access to employment, buying their land from absentee landlords, etc. It's pretty clear that he had no intention of integrating the Zionists into Palestinian society, but rather to establish a parallel Jewish-only society. He didn't, he had bizarre socio-economic views that espoused gentrification of impoverished individuals but taking it to where you did is simply wrong. Here is the quote: Herzel posted:When we occupy the land, we shall bring immediate benefits to the state that receives us. We must expropriate gently the private property on the estates assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly … It goes without saying that we shall respectfully tolerate persons of other faiths and protect their property, their honor, and their freedom with the harshest means of coercion. This is another area in which we shall set the entire world a wonderful example … Should there be many such immovable owners in individual areas [who would not sell their property to us], we shall simply leave them there and develop our commerce in the direction of other areas which belong to us. He is talking about buying lands and gentrifying them, there is no indication that he wants the Jews to live in segregated communities, unless you mean segregated from poors. quote:Maybe not Greater Israel and maybe not as soon as it occurred, but the Zionists always(or at least beginning with their decision of Palestine as the site) intended to impose a state in Palestine in which Jews and only Jews ruled. Maybe they were intending something like French Algeria where the ruling class was in the numerical minority but the Arab majority was powerless and deliberately marginalized from the civic sphere, but such an arrangement would, assuming the Zionists could prevail militarily, inevitably lead to the ethnic cleansing of the natives. Patently incorrect, at least if you go by what Herzel and even Jabotinsky actually wrote. quote:It seems like you're very close to attempting to justify ethnic cleansing. Maybe the Zionist project was at one point just a pipe-dream but at no point were the Zionist settlers looking to treat the indigenous Palestinians as equals or to share power with them. It was very clear from the beginning that an exclusivist Jewish state was the end goal of the Zionist project and it's this, as well as the economic discrimination practiced by the Zionist colonists, that was primarily responsible for the Palestinians' hostility. It's also important to remember that European settlers, in similarly small numbers, had been able to subjugate large populations in Arabia, Africa and Asia through their military superiority and through tactics like "divide and conquer" so it's not as "bizarre" for the Zionists to believe in the feasibility of establishing a colony in Palestine as it might seem in retrospect. Clear to whom? The writings of the earliest zionists do not indicate that at all, Herzel was a liberal, the fact is that inferring backwards from the Nakba that it was a part of a master plan all along is obvious only to those who wish to view it that way, I am not justifying ethnic cleansing I am saying that once you choose an arbitrary starting point to the conflict and infer malicious intentions only to the nefarious zionists you distort reality to the point where you're no longer interested in objective facts but rather in convenient narratives. The original Zionist immigrants sought to flee antisemitism and provide a "safe haven for jews" in Palestine, we're talking 1880s here, it is true that they wished to live in their own communities and establish Jewish towns and villages but that's simply how the majority of Jews lived throughout their history, integration was not something either party sought at the time, for what it's worth they didn't particularly seek to integrate themselves with the "Old Yishuv" jewish communities either. If you insist upon judging the zionist movement by what you perceive to be its intentions and ignore the actual hostilities undertaken against Jews during the early 20th century don't be surprised when certain people choose to ignore your narrative as being historically fallacious.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 15:57
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Al-Saqr, did contemporary europeans view zionists as europeans, or jews? Did zionists view themselves as europeans, or jews? If it waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, and tastes like a duck, you might just be eating duck. Are you saying the Jews are fowl?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:It's a good thing those funny little brown Palestinian people have heroic white anti-zionists to tell them what they want. Without you, they might go on believing what they want is a Palestinian state of their own. I salute you for taking up the White Man's Burden and telling those backwards Arabs what's truly best for them. I'm black. My Imaginary GF posted:Al-Saqr, did contemporary europeans view zionists as europeans, or jews? Did zionists view themselves as europeans, or jews? If it waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, and tastes like a duck, you might just be eating duck. Anything on Palestinian conversion to Judaism being easy or religious discrimination being ok, or are we in the coward dodging phase again? DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 16:37 on Mar 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Sooner we see the PA fall and Palestinians start demanding equal rights as Israeli subjects, the faster is the Jewish state going to barrel towards its eventual end. It's pretty crazy how Zionism is its own worst enemy. The Palestinians don't want Israeli citizenship, and Israel won't give it to them anyway. The Israeli-controlled sections of the West Bank are ruled under Israeli military law, not Israeli civilian law, so equal rights aren't even a guarantee to Israelis in the West Bank. Although for some reason, the exploitation and abuse resulting from the fact that things like Israeli labor law don't apply in the West Bank always seems to fall on Palestinians and Arabic/black Jews. Regardless, Israel won't take the collapse of Palestinian governance as a reason to extend official Israeli sovereignty and law to the West Bank - they'll just maintain the current status quo with Israel in de facto control of Palestinian territory, as long as possible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:Die in a fire. Unfortunately it's not always that easy, many critics of Israel are not endangered by your fire.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The Palestinians don't want Israeli citizenship, and Israel won't give it to them anyway. The Israeli-controlled sections of the West Bank are ruled under Israeli military law, not Israeli civilian law, so equal rights aren't even a guarantee to Israelis in the West Bank. Although for some reason, the exploitation and abuse resulting from the fact that things like Israeli labor law don't apply in the West Bank always seems to fall on Palestinians and Arabic/black Jews. Regardless, Israel won't take the collapse of Palestinian governance as a reason to extend official Israeli sovereignty and law to the West Bank - they'll just maintain the current status quo with Israel in de facto control of Palestinian territory, as long as possible. As long as the world (aka. United States) makes it possible for them, which won't last forever. I think I've made it pretty clear in this thread that I don't expect Israel to give Palestinians anything out of their own volition, be it a two- or one state solution.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:
Herzel posted:When we occupy the land, we shall bring immediate benefits to the state that receives us. We must expropriate gently the private property on the estates assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly … It goes without saying that we shall respectfully tolerate persons of other faiths and protect their property, their honor, and their freedom with the harshest means of coercion. This is another area in which we shall set the entire world a wonderful example … Should there be many such immovable owners in individual areas [who would not sell their property to us], we shall simply leave them there and develop our commerce in the direction of other areas which belong to us. Herzel says right here that the plan was for Palestinians to be either economically isolated or relocated to another country. e: The reason for Palestinian hostility was that the Zionists did not expropriate capital or remove the poor "discretely" enough; aka the local population reacted in a way that Herzel himself likely foresaw. Miltank fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Mar 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
quote:He is talking about buying lands and gentrifying them, there is no indication that he wants the Jews to live in segregated communities, unless you mean segregated from poors. This is disingenuous. He's not simply talking about gentrifying or kicking out poor people. Hertzl had no problem with poor Jews coming to Palestine. It's only the Palestinian peasantry and proletariat(who made up the overwhelming majority of the Palestinian people) who were to be "spirited across the border." quote:Patently incorrect, at least if you go by what Herzel and even Jabotinsky actually wrote... The original Zionist immigrants sought to flee antisemitism and provide a "safe haven for jews" in Palestine, we're talking 1880s here, it is true that they wished to live in their own communities and establish Jewish towns and villages but that's simply how the majority of Jews lived throughout their history, integration was not something either party sought at the time, for what it's worth they didn't particularly seek to integrate themselves with the "Old Yishuv" jewish communities either. Enlighten me, then. The Zionists wanted to establish Jewish-only communes built on land dispossessed from Palestinian peasants and where Jews could be free from anti-semitism but they didn't want to establish a state where Jews held a monopoly on power? How can that possibly work, especially once British imperial rule ends? quote:Herzel was a liberal, the fact is that inferring backwards from the Nakba that it was a part of a master plan all along is obvious only to those who wish to view it that way, Herztl may have been a liberal but he was also a European born and raised during the Age of Empires, where the idea that Europeans, by dint of their self-evident superiority, were entitled to take and govern foreign lands was just as entrenched in the popular imagination as was anti-semitism. I mean, this is a movement that adopted "A land without a people for a people without a land" as a slogan because it refused to recognize the rights of the Palestinians just like European colonists elsewhere saw Asian and African lands as blank spaces ready to be conquered. And the fact is that the Nakba WAS the end product of Zionism and as Morris argues convincingly, such ethnic cleansing was the inevitable result of the Zionist project. As early as 1916, Zangwill told Jabotinsky that "If you wish to give a country to a people without a country, it is utter foolishness to allow it to be the country of two peoples. This can only cause trouble. The Jews will suffer and so will their neighbours. One of the two: a different place must be found either for the Jews or for their neighbours" quote:If you insist upon judging the zionist movement by what you perceive to be its intentions and ignore the actual hostilities undertaken against Jews during the early 20th century don't be surprised when certain people choose to ignore your narrative as being historically fallacious. As Morris writes, hostility to Jewish colonists was an inevitable result of what the Zionists were doing. A people that has lived under the yoke of imperial rule for centuries and who sees their future of self-rule threatened by foreign colonists is not going to take kindly to said colonists, especially when these colonists purchase land from absentee landlords with the express purpose of expelling Palestinians from their homeland and when these colonists deliberately deny the native Palestinians employment while giving well-paying jobs to foreign new arrivals just because of their race/religion. Palestinians didn't become hostile to the Jews primarily because of anti-semitism(IIRC, the first Jewish settlers were given a relatively warm welcome until their intentions became clear); the hostility comes from the fact that these were foreigners who arrived in Palestine not to join Palestinian society but to supplant it. No indigenous people likes colonists.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
If we go back far enoguh in everyone's family tree, we all come from Africa. This did not justify the Scramble for Africa as a return home for the Colonialist European Invaders. The same thing applies to the Nakba: the Jews who came to Palestine were Europeans and had no valid claim to found a country on Palestinian soil. The fact that they used a massive terrorism campaign to do so, and then proceeded to treat the Palestinian population horribly, only adds to the unjustified nature of Israel. The thing is, Israel won. THere's so many Israelis now, so many who were born there, to send back to their home countries would be both impossible AND another act of ethnic cleansing. Time has made it so that there's no easy solutions anymore.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:As long as the world (aka. United States) makes it possible for them, which won't last forever. I think I've made it pretty clear in this thread that I don't expect Israel to give Palestinians anything out of their own volition, be it a two- or one state solution. Israel doesn't need US permission to occupy Palestine without annexing it, and the collapse of the PA will only help that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Israel doesn't need US permission to occupy Palestine without annexing it, and the collapse of the PA will only help that. No, but it needs US help and support from being sanctioned and boycotted to hell and having a crapload of resolutions thrown at it in the US. Rest of the world doesn't particularly like or downright hates Israel. When US inevitably washes its hands of the whole thing, Israel is kind of done if they want to remain a first world nation. Having Palestinians frame themselves as oppressed subjects looking for equal rights instead of independence-searchers would in my opinion help speed that along. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 17:37 on Mar 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
Kinda interesting that the major parties are so determined to make things about Palestine and foreign affairs - and thereby avoid the much more difficult domestic issues. http://www.jpost.com/Israel-Elections/Obama-planning-to-pressure-Israel-Likud-officials-say-Bring-it-on-393155 quote:Amid reports that President Barack Obama plans to utilize the final 20 months of his term in office to push through a major diplomatic initiative in the Israeli-Palestinian sphere, officials in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s ruling Likud party on Friday privately expressed glee over the prospect.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Although for some reason, the exploitation and abuse resulting from the fact that things like Israeli labor law don't apply in the West Bank always seems to fall on Palestinians and Arabic/black Jews. You state this like the Mizrahim aren't by far the most anti-Arab/Muslim part of Israeli society.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Are these statements not contradictory? Aren't Herzel's statements contradictory in an of themselves? And no my statements aren't necessarily contradictory as the early zionist immigrants did not attempt to follow Herzel's writing to the word, Herzel was an idealist and a visionary who thought territory would just be given to the Jews, the immigrants themselves were a lot more practical and had more mundane and immediate goals. The reasons for Palestinian hostility were likely more numerous than that and not all entirely in reaction to the actions of zionists, and even if they were 'completely natural' this still has no explanatory value in regards to the actual actions they undertook against the old yishuv which can only be viewed as simply anti-semitic as the old yishuv was as indigenous to palestine as the palestinians themselves were. The point I'm making is that there was an obvious escalation borne out of the actions of factions belonging to both populations. There are plenty of reasons to think for instance that some actions undertaken against the Yishuv and the Old Yishuv had more to do with certain factions among the Palestinian population viewing the Jews as agents of the British empire. FreshlyShaven posted:This is disingenuous. He's not simply talking about gentrifying or kicking out poor people. Hertzl had no problem with poor Jews coming to Palestine. It's only the Palestinian peasantry and proletariat(who made up the overwhelming majority of the Palestinian people) who were to be "spirited across the border." Herzel had no idea what he was talking about and he clearly didn't have developed notions of what 'Ethnic Cleansing' entails, as no one did at that time period, however, his own writing suggests that if the poors don't want to leave that the Jews will just have to expand in different directions, basically from the same paragraph as the more complete quote provided by Miltank shows: Herzel posted:we shall simply leave them there and develop our commerce in the direction of other areas which belong to us. I think it's very safe to say that Herzel was not an advocate of a state-wide ethnic cleansing campaign. quote:Enlighten me, then. The Zionists wanted to establish Jewish-only communes built on land dispossessed from Palestinian peasants and where Jews could be free from anti-semitism but they didn't want to establish a state where Jews held a monopoly on power? How can that possibly work, especially once British imperial rule ends? quote:Herztl may have been a liberal but he was also a European born and raised during the Age of Empires, where the idea that Europeans, by dint of their self-evident superiority, were entitled to take and govern foreign lands was just as entrenched in the popular imagination as was anti-semitism. I mean, this is a movement that adopted "A land without a people for a people without a land" as a slogan because it refused to recognize the rights of the Palestinians just like European colonists elsewhere saw Asian and African lands as blank spaces ready to be conquered. Only opposed to those settlement projects Herzel clearly writes about integrating the natives into the nascent state, sure thinking that you can come to a place and establish a new world order is racist in itself but Herzel did not for the better part think that the country should malevolently expel the natives or eradicate them, nor did he see the country as a blank space, it's true that he viewed arab culture as degenerate and primitive. quote:And the fact is that the Nakba WAS the end product of Zionism and as Morris argues convincingly, such ethnic cleansing was the inevitable result of the Zionist project. As early as 1916, Zangwill told Jabotinsky that "If you wish to give a country to a people without a country, it is utter foolishness to allow it to be the country of two peoples. This can only cause trouble. The Jews will suffer and so will their neighbours. One of the two: a different place must be found either for the Jews or for their neighbours" The fact that Zangwill had to try to convince Jabotinsky of this notion suggests that Jabotinsky did not (originally) hold this view himself, doesn't it? Zionism clearly evolved and became more militant over time. quote:As Morris writes, hostility to Jewish colonists was an inevitable result of what the Zionists were doing. A people that has lived under the yoke of imperial rule for centuries and who sees their future of self-rule threatened by foreign colonists is not going to take kindly to said colonists, especially when these colonists purchase land from absentee landlords with the express purpose of expelling Palestinians from their homeland and when these colonists deliberately deny the native Palestinians employment while giving well-paying jobs to foreign new arrivals just because of their race/religion. Palestinians didn't become hostile to the Jews primarily because of anti-semitism(IIRC, the first Jewish settlers were given a relatively warm welcome until their intentions became clear); the hostility comes from the fact that these were foreigners who arrived in Palestine not to join Palestinian society but to supplant it. No indigenous people likes colonists. Morris also argues the exact opposite in other places, as I said, it does not seem like his quote is particularly relevant juxtaposed against the actions of zionists in the late 19th century while it certainly makes a lot of sense when applied to the Yishuv in the 1940s, you keep ignoring that Palestinians kept lashing out against the old yishuv for some reason even though they were not colonists under any sensible definition of the term. It actually seems like the Palestinians and the Zionists were on relatively okay terms until the British defeat of the Ottoman empire and as I said in response to Miltank this might yield more explanatory power than the writings of certain segments among the Zionist leadership or the expropriation of a relatively minor fraction of the Palestinian population from lands purchased by Jews from absentee landlords. The vector of zionism in palestine is not identical to that of other colonialist movements, it moved a lot more slowly and the indigenous population was not a 'technologically primitive' society. If you insist upon looking at Palestinians hostilities as being in response to an overarching zionist masterplan then I must insist upon viewing this as a self fulfilling prophecy, Jews might have bought lands from absentee landlords and removed their inhabitants but violence was first initiated by Palestinians. There was a mutual escalation, history didn't begin in 1948 and the writings of Zangwill do not justify pogroms, massacres or raids against jewish towns and villages (which in turn do not justify the Nakba, if this needs to be said again).
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:The reasons for Palestinian hostility were likely more numerous than that and not all entirely in reaction to the actions of zionists, and even if they were 'completely natural' this still has no explanatory value in regards to the actual actions they undertook against the old yishuv which can only be viewed as simply anti-semitic as the old yishuv was as indigenous to palestine as the palestinians themselves were. The point I'm making is that there was an obvious escalation borne out of the actions of factions belonging to both populations. There are plenty of reasons to think for instance that some actions undertaken against the Yishuv and the Old Yishuv had more to do with certain factions among the Palestinian population viewing the Jews as agents of the British empire. emanresu tnuocca posted:Morris also argues the exact opposite in other places, as I said, it does not seem like his quote is particularly relevant juxtaposed against the actions of zionists in the late 19th century while it certainly makes a lot of sense when applied to the Yishuv in the 1940s, you keep ignoring that Palestinians kept lashing out against the old yishuv for some reason even though they were not colonists under any sensible definition of the term. It actually seems like the Palestinians and the Zionists were on relatively okay terms until the British defeat of the Ottoman empire and as I said in response to Miltank this might yield more explanatory power than the writings of certain segments among the Zionist leadership or the expropriation of a relatively minor fraction of the Palestinian population from lands purchased by Jews from absentee landlords. The vector of zionism in palestine is not identical to that of other colonialist movements, it moved a lot more slowly and the indigenous population was not a 'technologically primitive' society. If you insist upon looking at Palestinians hostilities as being in response to an overarching zionist masterplan then I must insist upon viewing this as a self fulfilling prophecy, Jews might have bought lands from absentee landlords and removed their inhabitants but violence was first initiated by Palestinians. There was a mutual escalation, history didn't begin in 1948 and the writings of Zangwill do not justify pogroms, massacres or raids against jewish towns and villages (which in turn do not justify the Nakba, if this needs to be said again). There were petitions made to Ottoman leadership to place a ban on Jews purchasing land in Palestine, but the Palestinian political leadership was largely composed of the same wealthy notables who were profiting from land sales, so a lack of opposition to zionism is hardly surprising. The old Yishuv served as extremely convenient scapegoats for these notables as a means of directing anger away from their benefactors. So yes, attacks against the old Yishuv were born out of antisemitism, but they were motivated by anti-zionist reaction and carried out by an uninformed populace. I can't say that I agree with you that forced removal of inhabitants from their homes isn't an act of violence. Miltank fucked around with this message at 20:08 on Mar 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
Miltank posted:There were petitions made to Ottoman leadership to place a ban on Jews purchasing land in Palestine, Miltank posted:I can't say that I agree with you that forced removal of inhabitants from their homes isn't an act of violence. Wanted to read more about the expulsion of Palestinians from their homes prior to the Nakba, most sources I find (admitedly, Jewish/Zionist ones) seem to claim that this was not a very common occurrence, there's even a quote by the grand wizard to the effect that this is something that should be avoided quote:David Ben-Gurion expressed his concern about the Arab fellahin, whom he viewed as “the most important asset of the native population.” Ben-Gurion said “under no circumstances must we touch land belonging to fellahs or worked by them. Also this: quote:The Peel Commission’s report found that Arab complaints about Jewish land acquisition were baseless. It pointed out that “much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamp and uncultivated when it was purchased. . . . there was at the time of the earlier sales little evidence that the owners possessed either the resources or training needed to develop the land.” And to cap it off with a terrible quote coming from not the most reliable of narrators (mostly quoting this cause the Hashemite royalty is among those most complicit in the escalation of the Jewish/Palestinian conflict and whose involvement is most often ignored) quote:“It is made quite clear to all, both by the map drawn up by the Simpson Commission and by another compiled by the Peel Commission, that the Arabs are as prodigal in selling their land as they are in useless wailing and weeping” (emphasis in the original). All coming from here: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths3/MFmandate.html so really I wouldn't bet my life on any of this information I am curious though about sources which paint a different picture, if you have any such available.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:Which seems already antisemitic. In the same way Native Americans asking for a ban on settlers acquiring more land in their territories would be anti-white, sure.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:In the same way Native Americans asking for a ban on settlers acquiring more land in their territories would be anti-white, sure. This is so retarded I'm at loss as to how to actually respond. You do realize that we are talking about events that occurred about 40 years before the Nakba yes?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:This is so retarded I'm at loss as to how to actually respond. You do realize that we are talking about events that occurred about 40 years before the Nakba yes? You are talking about actions taken in response to openly held Zionist plans to create a Jewish state out of Palestine. Even if you don't perceive Herzel's writings as being aggressive, you can believe that Ottoman intellectuals did. E: I'm posting from memory right now but when I get home I should be able to provide some citations. My information is mostly out of lecture notes and a textbook- Cleveland's History of the Modern Middle East. Miltank fucked around with this message at 21:00 on Mar 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
Miltank posted:You are talking about actions taken in response to openly held Zionist plans to create a Jewish state out of Palestine. Even if you don't perceive Herzel's writings as being aggressive, you can believe that Ottoman intellectuals did. Even if they were, legislation that bans one specific ethno-religious minority from purchasing lands is racist. Same as anyone in this thread would argue (correctly!) that Israeli bureaucratic mechanisms in place to prevent arabs from purchasing lands in Israel are racist even though near identical rationale can be applied (surely Israeli policy makers have legitimate reasons to be concerned about Arabs purchasing territory within in Israel?).
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:Even if they were, legislation that bans one specific ethno-religious minority from purchasing lands is racist. If a group of native americans passed law saying that white people can't move in, buy up land and set up strip malls, would you call them racist? What about indigenous people in Honduras and Nicaragua who want to kick out White and Chinese developers, are they racist? What about a gentrifying neighborhood in San Francisco, are they racist for telling rich white people to stay out? In all of these cases, they don't even have the benefit of someone admitting that the ultimate end result is their forced removal, it's just a secondary effect. They don't have a Anglo, Spanish or Chinese Hertzl who makes that explicit for them. OwlBot 2000 fucked around with this message at 21:14 on Mar 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
jews were really bad "white people" until, like, the fiftes, at the earliest, i don't think that analogy works as you intended
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
I dunno, I guess germans just wanting to make germany judenrein was also not racist, after all, the jews did commit the Nakba. I'm starting to like these time-travel morality shenanigans, but at some point we'll have to talk about how the expulsion of jews from muslim countries totally justifies the nakba cause why not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:jews were really bad "white people" until, like, the fiftes, at the earliest, i don't think that analogy works as you intended I mentioned the Chinese as well, you don't have to be white to take part in the ethnic cleansing of a domestic population to make way for your foreign group.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:I dunno, I guess germans just wanting to make germany judenrein was also not racist, after all, the jews did commit the Nakba. This is one reason why I think any peace plan will have to require Muslim countries that expelled their Jewish minorities, many who probably would have felt more at home with the newly emerging Arabist ideolodgy rather than Zionism should have to pay reparations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:Even if they were, legislation that bans one specific ethno-religious minority from purchasing lands is racist. Same as anyone in this thread would argue (correctly!) that Israeli bureaucratic mechanisms in place to prevent arabs from purchasing lands in Israel are racist even though near identical rationale can be applied (surely Israeli policy makers have legitimate reasons to be concerned about Arabs purchasing territory within in Israel?). I just mentioned it because you said something to the effect that Zionism was unopposed until the creation on the mandate. That the proposed policy was racist is irrelevant. Besides, racism has no useful meaning when not applied to scenarios of gross deficiencies in power- a ban on the purchase of land by certain foreign nationals is racist, but it should hardly wet your eyes. e: Particularly when it is an open secret that the foreign nationals plan to undermine the local population and create their own nation state. Miltank fucked around with this message at 21:30 on Mar 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:I mentioned the Chinese as well, you don't have to be white to take part in the ethnic cleansing of a domestic population to make way for your foreign group. yes, and han chinese work much better as a "white-people" analogue than the jews do. it's not a problem of the dynamic, it is that the jews didn't fit into that dynamic at the time
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:This is one reason why I think any peace plan will have to require Muslim countries that expelled their Jewish minorities, many who probably would have felt more at home with the newly emerging Arabist ideolodgy rather than Zionism should have to pay reparations. hm yes let us involve even more touchy parts that have to give concessions, this will surely be a great success
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:This is one reason why I think any peace plan will have to require Muslim countries that expelled their Jewish minorities, many who probably would have felt more at home with the newly emerging Arabist ideolodgy rather than Zionism should have to pay reparations. That seems fair, the expulsion of Jewish people from Arab countries was unjust on every level.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
Well while we're arguing about how barring jews from purchasing lands in Palestine back in 1900 was totally reasonable it seems like some ~80,000 curse Ynet and their low res images:  So maybe come St. Patrick's day we'll have a reason to be slightly optimistic for a few month before Herzog and Livni go on a rampage in Gaza.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:I dunno, I guess germans just wanting to make germany judenrein was also not racist, after all, the jews did commit the Nakba. The expulsion of Jews from muslim states justifies a nakba on an equal level. Since a nakba on an equal level was not carried out against Arabs in Palestine, the nakba cannot be justified. The difference between the Israeli ethnic policies during the independence war and muslim state ethnic policies is that Israeli ethnic policies are not administered directly through state institutions tied to one individual's will, while muslim state ethnic policies are. This is a key difference, and the sole reason why Israeli ethnic policies are defensible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:The expulsion of Jews from muslim states justifies a nakba on an equal level. Since a nakba on an equal level was not carried out against Arabs in Palestine, the nakba cannot be justified. two wrongs make a right, you see
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
To clarify, I am not actually of the opinion that atrocities travel back in time and retroactively justify other atrocities. I think MIGF was somewhat confused about that one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:The expulsion of Jews from muslim states justifies a nakba on an equal level. Since a nakba on an equal level was not carried out against Arabs in Palestine, the nakba cannot be justified. No that's not how human rights violations work.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:No that's not how human rights violations work. If its human rights violations we're talking about, lets go to the root motivation of political zionism and have those states pay reparations to everyone involved.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
So we should sanction Italy?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:yes, and han chinese work much better as a "white-people" analogue than the jews do. it's not a problem of the dynamic, it is that the jews didn't fit into that dynamic at the time You're correct, I'll retract the comparison because the Jews of the time were not in a dominant position at the time. Most were poor and powerless, and came from atrocious conditions in Europe and elsewhere. At the same time, there was a well-known colonial project whose ultimate consequences were foreseen: the expulsion of Palestinians from their lands. If that's the case, the motivation for the policy can't be reduced to mere "antisemitism" or "racism", it was motivated by a very prescient fear that they would take over and expel the current residents.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:If its human rights violations we're talking about, lets go to the root motivation of political zionism and have those states pay reparations to everyone involved. Are you saying that we should have had Poland, Germany, France, Hungary and Russia give Jewish people money and large swaths of land on which to build a Jewish State as payment for centuries of persecution and pogroms? I agree. That would have been much better than making an innocent third-party (Palestinians) pay the price for the crimes of Europeans.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 14:02 |
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:the nakba cannot be justified. You're right on that at least; even if the logic you used to get there is absurd.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 21:52
|
|